Almost 30 years ago, I had my first introduction to the tactics of postmodern argumentation.  A professor at Texas Lutheran made the statement that he could not be racist because as a Latino, he had no power.  Racism was prejudice plus power.  I scratched my head.  I had been taught that racism was prejudice towards another person on the basis of skin color or a sense of moral superiority towards one’s own race.  Where did this other definition come from?

Since then, I discovered the origin of the professor’s definition, and I have also discovered that such shifting of definitions are a strategy to shift an argument to heavily favor one particular side by causing confusion, obfuscation, and, in the case of racism, an avenue where one does not need to examine one’s own prejudice towards those of a different color. 

There are times to call such obfuscation out and refuse to play the game.  There are times to say, “I simply refuse to engage your definition of that word because it is not the culturally agreed upon definition of that word.”  However, there are also times to do what apologists call “defeating an argument on the opponent’s terms.”

When you can show that an opponent’s definitions or stances will fail to accomplish what they set out to do, you can cut through the confusion and bring the argument around to your favor.

Such is the case with the definition of racism embraced by those of a more left-leaning bent.  Prejudice plus power is their definition of the word, so logically, if you get rid of either of those things, racism is dismantled.  Get rid of power or get rid of prejudice, and racism comes to a halt. 

So, here is the question to ask in regards to power: has there ever been a system of thought or practice that gets rid of power?  You really shouldn’t have to wait long for an answer.  The self-evident answer is no.  Even that professor from Texas Lutheran was a bit misguided when he said he had no power.  He handed out grades, after all.  One simply cannot get rid of power structures.  They emerge no matter what, and as power shifts and prejudice remains, you simply shift who is racist and never eradicate racism.

Therefore, you must look at the prejudice part of that equation.  How does one get rid of prejudice?  Can one pass any sort of legislation which will eradicate it?  Again, the answer is no as prejudice pertains to the state of a heart and mind.  In order to change prejudice, a heart and mind must be changed.  What is the most effective way to change a heart?

From a Christian standpoint, it is the power of the Gospel which brings to fruition the baptismal promise: “there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28). 

As far as I can tell, and please tell me otherwise if not, this particular approach completely dismantles those who would like to excuse racism by changing the definitions, and it brings the discussion to a place where Christianity offers the best answer to truly tackle the problem of racism.

Recently, the ELCA posted the results of a DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) Audit¹ which was authorized by the Churchwide Assembly.  The audit laid out its findings and made numerous recommendations for the church to implement practically and constitutionally.

It would seem as though a move towards DEIA would be uncontroversial.  If you take the traditional meaning of each of those words, arguably every congregation would seek to be: diverse as the Gospel is for all people; equitable as God is just and fair; inclusive as, again, the Gospel is for all people; and accessible as we are called to be hospitable and welcoming.  However, one of the great tricks of the postmodern world is to take common words and redefine them to mean something different.  DEIA in the current secular fashion is less about including everyone and more about pushing out those who are labeled oppressors—usually heterosexual, white men.  And while the audit does go to great pains to try and urge a DEIA policy which is rooted in biblical thought², I cannot help but see a Trojan horse which seeks to formalize secular DEIA within the church.

I believe this to be the case as I see these recommendations centering the church’s focus on DEIA and moving it completely away from its God-given mission to spread the gospel.  I hope to show this in four points.

#1. The approach is top down.  Don’t take my word for it.  I quote the DEIA report itself, “ELCA’s leadership needs to be more vocal, consistent and strong on expressing commitment to, and visibly advancing, DEIA, from the top down.”³  Right off the bat, we see that this implementation is not a grass roots movement which most lay people embrace and are calling for.  This is an imposition of thought and practice that begins at the top and is forced upon the whole church, including recommendations for punitive measures for those who do not comply.⁴  Such practice does not exactly have a good track record of success historically and actually ends up being divisive and counter-productive. 

#2. It shifts the primary focus of the church inward instead of outward.  Not that many churches have escaped the problem of naval gazing, but this movement reinforces the tendency to focus on “us.”  What do we look like?  Are we making sure we have proper representation across all groups within our church?  One might argue that this will force the church to look outward in order to check the appropriate boxes.  It is a legitimate argument, but its practical application has been an abject failure within the ELCA for decades already.  What makes us think it will change this time?

#3. It’s the wrong metric to measure congregation viability and engagement.  Here is a suggestion from the audit: “Those incentives might include granting congregations with stellar DEIA achievements greater voting power at the Assemblies, as a form of enhanced membership, or conditioning any grants or other financial assistance to congregations on compliance with the Recommended Minimum DEIA Standards.⁵”  Grant incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores, but not to congregations who are actively feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving drink to the thirsty, and visiting the prisoners?  Granting incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores instead of congregations who are growing in number?  Granting incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores but not to congregations who are actively engaged in their communities and truly making an impact in those communities through their ministries?  This is a bit more worldly, but…granting incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores but not to congregations who give big benevolence dollars to the synod?  Need I go on?

#4 And probably the most damning.  When the prophet Samuel went to anoint a son of Jesse to be the next king of Israel, a very interesting scenario plays out.  As Samuel approaches the sons, he gazes upon their appearance and makes judgments.  Time and again, Samuel is met with this response or a similar one, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”  This is not simply a truism of the Old Testament.  It particularly is emphasized in the New Testament as the result of encountering the overwhelming grace and love of God.  The human heart changes from looking inward (classical definition of sin) to looking outward towards God and neighbor–in that order.  DEIA does not look upon the human heart, but upon outward characteristics.  It completely reverses the stance God takes throughout the Scriptures.  It must be rejected on this basis alone.  To continue down the path of implementation will resort to nothing less than a disaster.

---

1.  REPORT ON THE DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION, AND ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT OF THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS OF THE ELCA. Fox, Swibel, Levin & Carroll LLP.  Chief Author: N. NEVILLE REID.  November 2023. 

https://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/DEIA_Report_Part_1.pdf

https://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/DEIA_Report_Part_2.pdf

2. Ibid.  p. 4, 6-7.

3. Ibid. p. 3.

4. Ibid. p. 3.

5. Ibid. p. 8.

Editor’s Note: Pr. Haug wrote a positive article on this topic in January (click here).

Last newsletter I hinted that I would write a follow up article about Operation
Reconquista and offer some critical thoughts about the movement. However, after
publication, I was introduced to two leaders in the movement; Richard Ackerman (AKA
Redeemed Zoomer), the official leader of Operation Reconquista, and Benjamin Ruff,
leader of the Society of Lutheran Advocates (SOLA). SOLA is the Lutheran
Component of Operation Reconquista. Rather than simply offer critique, I offered these
two gentlemen a chance to respond to my critical questions. What follows is their
responses in an interview format which allows CORE readers to hear from them directly.

1. I hope you saw the article that I wrote for Lutheran Core.  Did I accurately capture what Operation Reconquista is trying to accomplish as well as accurately convey your beliefs?

RA: Yes, you did accurately represent us. Here are a few things I would add: Firstly, Reconquista is part of a broader ideology that Christians have made the mistake of retreating from the culture and the world in the past 100 years, which has caused the culture to become more secular, which has caused more Christians to retreat, and so the cycle repeats. Reconquista is the belief that, when secularists hijack a Christian church or institution, faithful Christians should retake it rather than running away from it.

Secondly, the abandonment of mainline churches and the rise of Evangelical and non-denominational churches has caused Protestantism to lose its traditional and institutional rootedness, which is something the Reconquista hopes to fix.

BR: I was very pleased to read your article. It was an incredibly brief and accurate representation of our goals. Affirmative responses were in short supply, so we were delighted to receive one from such a trusted source.

2a. For those who know history, the word Reconquista can conjure up images of violent response and take over.  Obviously, you are neither advocating for nor implementing such things; however, knowing that there are those who say, “Words are violent,” and that they might use that against the name of the movement: did you consider other names?  How do you respond to those who might try to tie this to a violent takeover?

RA: I was the one who thought of the name Reconquista. Yes, it is a militaristic language. The Bible uses militaristic language. But the Bible is VERY careful to clarify “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” – Ephesians 6:12. Likewise, we are very clear to clarify that we are fighting Satan, and the heresies that he has spread in the church, not against churches and not against leaders in the church. We believe that in order to inspire young men to make sacrifices and take up a difficult cause, it is psychologically necessary to use strong militaristic language. We believe the failure of past conservative renewal movements in the mainline can be partially attributed to their timid and compromising nature. The progressives have never been timid in the slightest and have been rewarded for it with astounding conquest.

BR: I was not involved in the naming process of Operation Reconquista, but I was involved in the naming process of SOLA, and militaristic language just didn’t strike us as the best way to describe ourselves. As far as those who try to associate us with violence, our usual response is twofold; Firstly, the Bible and theologians have never shied away from using militaristic metaphors to describe the life of faith, and secondly, we’ve never advocated for any sort of violence. We have only encouraged perseverance and catechism. We do what we can to ensure that when our members engage in debate, they conduct themselves in a Graceful and Christlike manner.

2b. For many people in mainline denominations the word Reconquista will conjure up images of the Conquistadores – not the people who reconquered Europe from the Ottoman Empire but the European powers that came to and conquered America and enslaved and mistreated indigenous peoples.  How will you deal with the blowback you will receive from those who will dismiss you as just white, misogynistic, privileged, oppressive, western, Euro-centric males?  

RA: This one is easy. In all global conflicts between liberals and conservatives in a denomination, the white countries have churches that are trying to push the church in a liberal, LGBTQ affirming direction, and the global countries have churches trying to resist it. Two enormous examples of this are: 1) the African Anglican churches recently hosted a meeting of conservative Anglicans from all over the world in Kigali, Rwanda, to condemn the Church of England’s affirmation of same-sex blessings. 2) the United Methodist Church would have voted for gay marriage in 2019 if it weren’t for all the African congregations voting against it. Generally, theological liberalism emerges from privileged white cultures. Even within American mainline denominations, minority congregations are almost universally more theologically conservative on average.

BR: Here at SOLA, some of our current goals include establishing a women’s group, either just for SOLA or potentially for the entire Reconquista, as well as contacting and including ethnic church voices in the movement. If we ever have the resources to do so, we would be delighted to publish theological resources in other languages. It is a fact that young white males do make up the majority of our membership, but the white-ness of our movement is only a reflection of the ELCA’s demographics, the youthfulness of the movement is because many of the ELCA’s older orthodox members have already jumped ship(Or joined organizations such as LCORE), and the male-ness of our movement is a result of it being spread on the internet, where women are typically less active.

3a. I noted that among things that Operation Reconquista sought to preserve in the mainline was cultural power and relevancy.  How would you respond to those who believe that mainline denominations are no longer relevant and actually have little to no cultural power? 

RA: The mainline has POTENTIAL to have cultural relevance, but that potential is not actualized due to the mainline refusing to hold to its historic beliefs. The Catholic Church has strong cultural influence these days because they are institutionally rooted and theologically conservative. Evangelicals are theologically conservative, but not institutionally rooted, so they don’t have much influence. However, if the mainline, which is institutionally rooted, becomes more theologically conservative, it will gain back its cultural influence.

BR: The reason the Mainline doesn’t appear culturally relevant is because it hasn’t been utilizing that cultural relevancy in any meaningful way. If Mainline churches began preaching things apart from modern culture and properly teaching orthodox faith, the changes it would be able to make would be truly profound. It’s also important to note that a more orthodox mainline wouldn’t just be utilizing its own cultural power, it would also be amplifying the cultural power of Christianity as a whole by presenting more visible unity in Christian thought.

3b. I personally believe the Church should not be interested in obtaining cultural power but should strive to be invitational and not impositional.  The times the church has taken cultural power have not generally ended well.  What are your thoughts regarding this?

RA: “Cultural power” does not necessarily mean a marriage between church and state. It simply means the church can have a moral influence on the outside world. Liberals in the denomination already believe this. They believe the church’s job is to speak out against injustice. About this they are correct, they are just doing it on secular terms instead of Biblical terms.

BR: I think these concerns are valid but slightly premature. At this moment, Operation Reconquista’s mission is restricted exclusively to the church and its congregants. I pray that when the day comes that our mission has the opportunity to expand our sights to other institutions, a wise decision will be made, and whatever we do will be pursued in a Christ-like manner.

4. Is the mainline truly worth saving?  What if the death of mainline denominations is a removing of the branches of the vine that do not bear fruit (John 15)? 

RA: It is hard for Americans to understand this, but institutions matter. Generational resources matter. Traditions matter. The mainline contains generations and generations of donations from faithful Christians, only to be hijacked by those who do not hold to the values that such people donated to. Mainline churches have decades and centuries of history and heritage quite literally carved into their walls. They have old cemeteries. They are living testimonies to the beautiful things Christians built for the glory of God. Their choirs and liturgies are still relics of what they created back when they were more faithful.

BR: I would argue that the ELCA still bears fruit. Not Theological fruits, but the ELCA’s commitment to charity and community under the motto “God’s work our hands” is (to my knowledge) unparalleled among Lutherans, in addition to the fact that the ELCA has been able to provide sacraments more regularly than a lot of other Lutheran churches, and even if many parts of the ELCA are barren in God’s eyes, we hope that by building up the orthodox congregations within it, some twigs and leaves will remain.

5. A more practical question: the secular progressives indeed played a very long game to seize power in mainline denominations, and they were very successful.  There are numerous accounts (Dennis Nelson has chronicled several in the CORE newsletter) of them pushing out orthodox believers and seizing control of congregations to ensure their agenda continues.  Are you prepared for the blowback that you will inevitably receive? 

RA: Yes there will be persecution. Jesus said we would face it. However, persecution only makes the church stronger. Christians were persecuted in the Roman Empire but ended up taking it over. The way of Jesus is the way of suffering and rejection, but in the end, the church will be triumphant because God is on our side.

BR: Only time will tell if we are strong enough or lucky enough to weather the backlash from the ELCA’s leadership and members, but I can say that all the members of SOLA are incredibly passionate and committed people who are aware of these threats, and willing to face them as they come, though that’s not to say we’re going to paint targets on ourselves or our churches without needing to.

Can mainline denominations be reconquered from theological liberalism?  A group named Operation Reconquista has emerged to attempt such a thing, and they are offering tactics on just how to proceed.

I had never heard of the group until asked to write about them and offer some thoughts.  To get the full scope of what they believe and what they are attempting to do, please click here to visit their website.  In a nutshell, their methodology is this: 1. Identify a moderate to conservative mainline congregation.  2. Attend there and become involved in leadership.  3. Work to strengthen that congregation in the orthodox Christian faith.  4. Resist any attempt to inject secular liberalism/progressivism.  5. Let the more liberal/progressive congregations die–as they will invariably do. 

They believe this reconquest is necessary given the historical contributions mainline denominations have made to the American society; their cultural power; the beauty of their traditions and liturgy; and their historic buildings.  “…Restoring them to the Gospel will revive the culture and reverse the persistent decline of religion in the West,” according to their website.¹

The group has targeted seven mainline denominations including the ELCA, and on Reformation day, they “posted” 95 Theses to each of these denominations calling on them to reform.  They reportedly sent these theses to every congregation in these denominations; however, I must also report that my congregation did not receive a copy, email or otherwise.  Perhaps my reputation as a CORE contributor preceded me.

For the remainder of this article, I would like to affirm the goals of this group and share my positive reactions.  I also found numerous things to critique, and I will share those in the next CORE Voice newsletter.

I truly admire the chutzpah of this group and their goals.  I too share with them the thought that most mainline denominations have departed from the orthodox faith and are in major need of reform. 

Like them, I agree that the liberal/progressives played the long game in their takeover of the mainline.  In a way, this group is seeking to give them a taste of their own medicine.

Like them, I agree that schism is not the optimal response, and neither is leaving except in extreme circumstances.  An extended quote from the Lutheran subgroup is appropriate here:

Stay in the ELCA. By leaving your church you let it dissolve into Liberalism, and eventually die out. The percentage of churches without pastors is noticeable, and because of this, entire churches, congregations, and even denominations simply melt away to Atheism or other denominations such as becoming an Evangelical.

If your church is truly very heretical and you are not being fed, go to your nearest Lutheran church, especially if its [sic] in the ELCA, rinse and repeat until you find a church you are comfortable retaking. If this means you must go to a WELS or LCMS church, then that’s fine, but if possible, go attend an ELCA church.²

No small amount of digital ink has been spilled by those who have advocated for orthodox Christians to leave more liberal/progressive denominations and congregations, and I get it.  I know that some have faced pressure from bishops and pastors to leave, and others have been kicked out.  If that were happening to me, I would get out as well.  However, I am also of a mind that the greatest weapon we wield is the Word of God and its preaching.  That Word can and does change hearts and minds even within more secular progressive/liberal denominations, and this group shares that conviction.

There is a real sense of conviction, daring, steadfastness and a willingness to go to battle, that Operation Reconquista seems to embrace.  This, in my estimation, is particularly appealing to men, both young and old, who have been dismissed, vilified, and objectified by a great majority of leaders in mainline churches.  In fact, young men currently are the majority of members in Operation Reconquista, and given the lack of young men’s involvement in the mainline, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

It shall be interesting to see if this group has the stamina to have long-term success in their endeavors.  If it is indeed powered by the Holy Spirit and is a movement of reform, they will eventually become a force to be reckoned with–and so I leave with a partial quote of the great rabbi Gamaliel in Acts 5, “Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

---

1. https://www.operationreconquista.com/blank-1

2. https://sola-elca.squarespace.com/faqs  SOLA is the Society of Orthodox Lutheran Advocates.

With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it? –Mark 4:30

For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’ it is that very Spirit bearing witness* with our spirit that we are children of God. –Romans 8:15-16

The first time I read the phrase “kin-dom of God,” I rolled my eyes. It looked to be another attempt to make Christian terminology politically correct—something I have a personal aversion to. So, when I was asked to write a piece on this particular phrase and its usage, particularly amongst progressive Christian circles, I thought I now had an opportunity to academically hammer the phrase.

However, after research, I have become a little more sympathetic to the term. Although, as the title indicates, there is no “kin-dom” of God without the Kingdom of God. Explanation is in order.

The Origins of Kin-dom

Multiple sources trace the origin of “kin-dom” to Georgene Wilson, a Franciscan nun, who spoke it to her friend, mujerista theologian, Ada María Isasi-Díaz.¹ Isasi-Díaz then incorporated it into her theological framework and wrote about it in her work “Kin-dom of God: A Mujerista Proposal.”² Unfortunately, I was unable to find this primary work online, so I am dependent upon a lengthy article by Bridgett Green, Assistant Professor of New Testament at Austin Presbyterian Seminary for insight into Isasi-Díaz’s thoughts.³

For Isasi-Diaz, “kindom” better reflects Jesus’s familial understandings of the community of disciples. Jesus envisioned an extended family with God as father. He announces that all who hear the word of God and do it are his family (Luke 8:21; cf. Mark 3:31-35 and Matthew 12:46-50). Further, Jesus links discipleship to membership in the family of God, saying that any who have left their blood relatives for the sake of the good news will receive back hundredfold in relationships and resources now and in the coming age (Mark 10:29-30, Luke 18:29-30, and Matthew 19:29). Jesus creates and grounds his community of disciples in the principles of kinship—and kinship with God comes not through blood relations but through participation in the duties and responsibilities proclaimed in the Torah and by the Prophets. “Kindom” evokes these values in horizontal relationships among all God’s beloved children, calling disciple communities to live into familial ideals of inclusion, mutual support, and sharing of resources.⁴

---

Professor Bridgett Green

I am quite sympathetic to this understanding of how disciples of Jesus interact with each other. St. Paul is emphatic that when we trust in Christ, we are adopted sons and daughters of God. Paul incorporates familial language throughout his letters, in the same vein Isasi-Díaz highlights. If highlighting this aspect of Christian thought was all that was going on, I don’t think there would be much of an issue with using the terminology of “kin-dom” as it would simply be an emphasis of the language of family used throughout the New Testament. However, there are proponents of this terminology who want to get rid of kingdom language totally and replace it with kin-dom. I find this problematic.

Why Erase Kingdom?

According to proponents of “kin-dom,” the language of kingdom presents multiple problems. It has been used by the church to make itself an earthly kingdom with earthly power and might.⁵ It tends towards exclusivity and can foster competition between kingdoms sometimes leading to violence.⁶ It is patriarchal in nature.⁷ And it “includes the specter of humiliation, subordination, punishment, exile, colonialization, sickness, poverty, as well as social, political, economic, and spiritual death.”⁸

In their view, “kin-dom” represents a much better understanding of what Jesus taught about God’s overall rule and what Jesus’ parables lead us toward.

Let’s work through a few of these things and offer some critique. First, I think we must separate the intent of Jesus’ teachings on God’s Kingdom (and the vision of how it works when God rules) from how sinful human beings have appropriated it. Many of the critiques of kingdom language resonate with the experience of human history, and one needs only pick up a history book to see the truth of what is being said. However, does human failing nullify biblical intent and understanding? Hardly.

Several years ago, I attended a mandatory boundary training in my synod. We were cautioned and steered away from using familial language to describe the church. The reason? Because families are places where abuse takes place; where neglect happens; where harm and pain are caused. It was not until a day or two afterwards that it hit me: not a single good thing was shared about what happens in families. No one spoke about parents who lovingly raise and sacrifice for their kids. No one said a word about how spouses care for each other and build one another up. No one spoke about the emotional support and foundations that are laid to help us cope with things that happen in life. No one said a thing about how the vast majority of parents feed, clothe, shelter, and spend hours upon hours of time with their children raising them to be productive citizens of society. All of the focus was on the bad, and not a single thing was said about the good. Do we abandon the metaphor because there are times of failure? Absolutely not!! Especially when the biblical witness emphasizes the metaphor so much.

I believe the same application is warranted here. Yes, there are, but the vision set forth in the Gospels, epistles, the book of Revelation, and even in the Old Testament lead us to use kingdom language. Why? To emphasize the goodness of God’s rule, and to show that there is a future hope which is a corrective to the failings of humankind.

Second, the kingdom of God is indeed exclusive, and I do not think this is something we as Christians should feel shame about. Paul is explicit in his writings that a person is either “in Christ” or “in Adam.” There is a strong line of demarcation, and the only way to go from one side to the other is through the cross. Essentially, a person either trusts in Christ’s work for salvation (in Christ), or they trust in themselves (in Adam). Either one trusts in grace for one’s righteousness, or one trusts in one’s works. There is no middle ground.

When you trust in Christ and His works, you shift your allegiance. No longer do you live for self: for self-indulgence; for self-affirmation; for self-preservation. Instead, you live for Christ. You live for God. No longer do you lay claim to the throne, but the rightful, righteous ruler is now seated upon the throne of your heart. You now serve a new master. (Romans 6) This is at the heart of the Christian creed, “Jesus is Lord.” You are announcing that Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords. You no longer rule over your life. Jesus does. And when He is king of your life, you enter into the Kingdom of God.

If you do not trust in Christ’s work, then you are not in the Kingdom of God. You are consumed by other hungers. You are on the outside looking in. In this fashion, the Kingdom of God is indeed exclusive, but, this does not lead to violence and conflict. It is self-righteousness which leads to such things, and a person who knows God’s grace is not self-righteous. They know they have no righteousness of their own. They know their sin. They know their dependence upon God and Christ’s grace. They also know they are commissioned to make disciples of all nations. They know the great command to love their neighbors as themselves. They do not seek to impose the faith or the Kingdom by imposition, but rather by invitation. The doorway to the Kingdom of God is always open, and the desire is to welcome all. Even though it is exclusive, it seeks the inclusion of all. This is not something to be ashamed of in the least.

A final word about patriarchy. Please know that I am using the following definition of patriarchy: a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. The Kingdom of God is a patriarchy since God is our Father. As such, this is a rather neutral understanding.

However, there is another definition of patriarchy which oftentimes gets applied. “A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.” The Kingdom of God was never meant to be such a thing. One would garner that self-evidently from Jesus’ own teachings on the Kingdom as well as St. Paul’s baptismal theology. However, living this ideal out on earth has proven to be quite difficult, and the Church has fallen very short of the ideal.

But again, the question must be asked: do we abandon the language because the ideal has not been met? No. There is no justification for that. You cannot change reality just by changing language.

Embracing Kingdom

And the reality of the Christian faith is this: you cannot have the “kin-dom” of God without the Kingdom of God.

As I hinted at previously, our Christian faith begins with God’s great grace poured out through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This grace captures and changes our hearts so that our allegiance shifts from ourselves and the desires of the flesh to allegiance to God and the desires of the Spirit. This is a vertical relationship, and it is primary. It must take place first. For through it, we actually fulfill the first and greatest commandment: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Everything starts with this vertical relationship.

Then, it moves to the horizontal. Then, it moves into our relationship with our brothers and sisters in Christ. Then, it moves to the second great command to love our neighbors as ourselves. This is where “kin-dom” language can come into play, but again, we must be careful.

Our neighbors may not share the same allegiance that we do. Our neighbors may not have Jesus as their King. They may still be “in Adam.” They still may belong to the kingdom of the world.

I was struck by a paragraph in Professor Green’s article:

This is the expansive sense of family to which Bishop Oscar Romero appealed when he exhorted the soldiers in El Salvador in 1980 before his assassination. He reminded them of Jesus’s vision of kinship, reminded them that we are all children of God, that we are connected through an honor code that values all, that provides security and a foundation for each person to be able to extend themselves into the community without losing their identity and sense of self.⁹

---

Bishop Romero appealed to the idea of “kin-dom” with the soldiers of El Salvador, but they still assassinated him. Why? Because they were serving a different master. They were serving a different king. They were not serving the King of kings and Lord of lords. Their hearts had not experienced the grace of God which would lead them away from committing such a heinous crime. The vertical relationship must always come first, and the Church’s primary job in the world is the proclamation of the Gospel which makes disciples of all nations–which calls our neighbors to have the same allegiance as we do.

To erase kingdom and replace with “kin-dom” means to place the second commandment above the first. It seeks to establish the kingdom without the King. That is not an option within the Christian faith, and it ultimately leads to failure. You simply cannot have the “kin-dom” without the Kingdom.

---

1. Florer-Bixler, Melissa. “The Kin-dom of Christ.” Sojourners. Nov. 20, 2018. https://sojo.net/articles/kin-dom-christ,

Green, Bridget. “On Kingdom and Kindom: The Promise and the Peril.” Issuu. Fall 2021. https://issuu.com/austinseminary/docs/insights_fall_2021_i/s/13746319

Butler Bass, Diana. “The Kin-dom of God.” Red Letter Christians. Dec.15, 2021 https://www.redletterchristians.org/the-kin-dom-of-god/

2.Green. https://issuu.com/austinseminary/docs/insights_fall_2021_i/s/13746319

3.Ibid.

4.Ibid.

5.Butler Bass. https://www.redletterchristians.org/the-kin-dom-of-god/

6.PCUSA. “Bible study at GA223 will Explore ‘kin-dom’ versus ‘kingdom.’” Feb.12, 2018

https://www.pcusa.org/news/2018/2/12/bible-study-ga223-will-explore-kin-dom-versus-king/?fbclid=IwAR2fVkwtu41Zps66Wvxa_QdQfqVUiMrPeb96vhyHxKSNYAwPCFDQLv4dJuc

7.Montgomery, Herb. “A Kingless Kingdom.” Renewed Heart Ministries: eSights and Articles. May 31, 2019. https://renewedheartministries.com/Esights/05-31-2019/

8.Green. https://issuu.com/austinseminary/docs/insights_fall_2021_i/s/13746319

9.Ibid.

---

Santino Burrola recorded a video and posted it to TikTok.  He was fired from his job at a grocery store for the offense.  What did he do wrong?  Inappropriately filming someone in the restroom?  Dancing in the aisles while on the clock?  No.  He recorded thieves stealing from the store.  He peeled aluminum foil off the license plate of the get-away vehicle so that it would become visible.  Hoping that the culprits would be caught, he posted the video, and at least one of the thieves was caught.  For his actions in trying to stop people from stealing, he was fired.

The store cited its policy that employees should not interfere with people shoplifting to “minimize the risk to our associates.”[i]

If you read the title to this piece, you may be wondering how this story relates to Christian Nationalism.  It doesn’t seem to tie in at all.  Please bear with me, and I will try to show you how.  There is a Christian Nationalism which should be rejected and condemned vociferously, but there are also some thoughts and ideas which are labeled “Christian Nationalism” in an attempt to smear those who offer them as well as to dismiss those ideas without having to engage them and understand why they are held; and those thoughts and ideas directly relate to the Santio Burrola situation.

First, we must define Christian Nationalism.  There is no firm definition, at least that I have found.  In our postmodern society, this is par for the course.  The muddier we can make definitions, the more we can apply or deny them to a given situation, group, or movement. 

But I don’t play those games.  Muddying the waters only sows confusion and chaos.  Therefore, you do not need to guess my operating definition of Christian Nationalism.  It is this: The belief that God has given the U.S. a special blessing and destiny, and that to be American means to be explicitly Christian.  Therefore the United States should impose the Christian faith upon its population in public life including in its understanding and application of the law.  Many would call my definition too limited, and they would like to add several caveats to it including the following:

• The U.S. was established to be an explicitly Christian nation.[ii]
• That Christianity should have a privileged position in society.[iii]
• That it provides cover for white supremacy and racial subjugation.[iv][v]

I reject these caveats and additions, and I explain why below. However, I also believe it is important for Christians to unequivocally reject and condemn the definition which I have set forth. Why?

For two substantial reasons: First, Christianity is invitational, not impositional.  Plain and simple.  Nowhere does Jesus ever suggest that anyone be forced to become a Christian or follow Him.  In fact, when people reject Jesus, He lets them go.  He doesn’t zap them.  He doesn’t punish them.  He allows them to walk away to follow their own whims.  He focuses His attention on those who do accept the invitation to follow Him. 

Faith in Christ does not come by forcing people to follow Jesus.  Faith comes by hearing the Word of God and having one’s heart transformed by the power of the Good News of Jesus Christ.  This is our only and sole weapon of transformation and bringing of the Kingdom of God to earth.  Imposing the Christian faith by fiat does not change a heart, and the times when it has been tried have led to disaster.

Secondly, the Kingdom of God is in the world, but it is not of the world.  Martin Luther writes about this eloquently in his short piece Temporal Authority: To what Extent it Should be Obeyed, “What would be the result of an attempt to rule the world by the Gospel and the abolition of earthly law and force? It would be loosing savage beasts from their chains. The wicked, under cover of the Christian name would make unjust use of their Gospel freedom.”[vi]

The Kingdom of God operates by grace, and those who enter into it have no need of temporal law.  The Law of God is written upon their hearts, and so they actually go above and beyond what temporal authority calls for.  However, as Luther states, there are very few true Christians, so temporal law is necessary to curb sin. 

Those who seek to impose the Kingdom of God by following the belief of Christian Nationalism do not fundamentally understand Christianity, and, perhaps this is why, as the authors of Taking America Back for God found, the religiously devout do not adhere to those beliefs.[vii]

It would appear that a rejection of Christian Nationalism on these terms would be satisfactory, and we could simply bury the subject altogether; however, we cannot.  The topic actually becomes a bit muddier when one considers there are people within society, and within the church, who use Christian Nationalism as a pejorative towards those who believe that a) the United States was founded upon Christian principles and b) that Christianity should have a privileged place in society. 

Let me state unequivocally before I continue, I do not believe that Christianity should have a legally privileged place in society.  That is both unconstitutional in the U.S. and would actually fall under Christian Nationalism; however, when I speak of a privileged position in society, I speak from understanding two things: 1) That, as a Christian and particularly a Lutheran, I believe that all temporal authority comes from God, and 2) without grounding the fundamental rights of humanity as well as both values and morals, in a transcendent[viii] reality/worldview—specifically a reality/worldview that also allows respectful disagreement alongside those rights, values and morals—then a society will descend into chaos and eventually fall.  Explanation is in order.

In the United States, it is understood that every individual human being is endowed with certain rights, and the founders of our nation stated clearly in the Declaration of Independence, those rights are self-evidently endowed by the Creator.  One must ask oneself two questions: 1) Where did this idea of fundamental human rights come from? and 2) Why say that they are endowed by the Creator?

The answer to the first of these questions is: fundamental human rights including that each human had inherent value and worth came from the Judeo-Christian tradition.  This is not a made up claim.  You can read the histories and practices of ancient civilizations and find that only within the Judeo-Christian tradition does one find that each and every person has worth and value; each and every person is created in the image of God; each and every person is allotted certain protections no matter if they are an insider or an outsider.  Here is the pertinent question: can a society hold onto fundamental beliefs when throwing out the very belief system that brought those beliefs into the world?

The answer to the second of these questions is: they are endowed by the Creator because if they were endowed by society or the government, then they can be taken away at the whim of society or the government.  Rights that are endowed by the transcendent can only be removed by the transcendent.  Rights that are endowed by the immanent[ix] can easily be removed by the immanent.  The reason the Civil Rights’ Movement in the U.S. was successful is that an appeal was made to transcendent rights which superseded laws that society had implemented.  Without such transcendence, one could have simply said, “The majority has spoken.  Your rights are granted by the state, nothing more.”  There would have been no counter argument.  Another pertinent question: Can a society which removes the underpinning of human rights from a transcendent Creator maintain human rights for everyone? 

The answers to these two questions begin pointing us towards the reason Christianity should have a privileged place in society. However, there is one more addition that must be made.  Christianity not only ensures fundamental human rights and grounds those rights in a transcendent reality, it also provides a moral framework which allows for disagreement and respect towards those who hold different positions.  Christians understand that we treat fellow Christians as family–this language permeates the New Testament, but what about those who are not in our Christian family?  They are our neighbors, and we are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves–love being agape, the Greek word for a self-sacrificial love which calls for sacrificing ourselves for the sake of our neighbor.  There is a further call to love one’s enemies–again using the same Greek word.  Hatred and demonization of enemies; of the other; of someone outside one’s preferred group, is forbidden within Christian thought.  Is there another philosophy or religion which goes so far? 

Certainly not the godless, postmodern society which is rapidly gaining ground within our culture.  Postmodern thought has removed the idea of transcendence and has made everything immanent, and, unfortunately, even some within the church buy into this particular philosophical framework.  It is much to society’s detriment.

Let us return to the opening story of this article: Santino Burrola and his subsequent firing for wanting to stop thieves.  What philosophy/worldview undergirds the idea that thieves should be allowed to take goods unchecked?  What philosophy/ worldview undergirds the idea that those who seek to stop stealing should be punished?  It’s not the Christian worldview.  It’s not the worldview which undergirded the United States from its inception.  There is something else at play.  There is another stream of thought which is being privileged. In this case, it is the postmodern worldview/philosophy which somehow has accepted theft and demeaned those who try to stop it.  It would seem self-evident that privileging this philosophy/worldview is not good for society in the long run.  In fact, it will lead to chaos. 

As the great Catholic apologist G.K. Chesterson once said, “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”[x]  A culture or society which does not believe in God, or at least have human rights rooted in a transcendent Creator, will then become capable of believing anything including that theft should be allowed and those who seek to protect another’s property should be punished.

It would behoove those who try to lump those who strongly adhere to the beliefs that the United States was founded upon Christian principles and that Christianity should have a privileged place in society to understand why we say such things and not simply dismiss us by pejoratively calling us Christian Nationalists.  We’re not.  We’re Christians, Lutherans, and citizens who love our country and what it stands for.  We want our country to be a place where justice, fairness, and freedom thrive.  We are convinced that in order for this to happen, we must have a shared understanding of human rights, values, and morals; and we are convinced by history, philosophy, and faith that this will be impossible without this being grounded in a transcendent reality which allows for disagreement.

Is there a better grounding than Christianity?  I don’t think so.

---

[i] https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/king-soopers-employee-fired-video-theft/

[ii] https://sas.rutgers.edu/news-a-events/news/newsroom/faculty/3406-religious-nationalism

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] https://www.elca.org/News-and-Events/7996

[v]  I do not deal with this caveat in the article as it is not a theological point; however, this Pew article (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/10/27/views-of-the-u-s-as-a-christian-nation-and-opinions-about-christian-nationalism/) shows that even within the African-American and Hispanic communities a majority of members of those communities support the statement that the founders of the U.S. meant for this to be a Christian Nation.  Not only that, the majority of African-American Protestants believe that the U.S. should be a Christian nation.  This caveat is actually not based in reality, but is based in an attempt to simply discredit Christian Nationalism by tying it to white supremacy without actually dealing with any arguments.

[vi] Luther, Martin. Temporal Authority: To What Extent it Should be Obeyed.  Luther’s Works Volume 45. P.91.

[vii] https://learn.elca.org/jle/taking-america-back-for-god-christian-nationalism-in-the-united-states-and-andrew-l-whitehead-and-samuel-l-perry/

[viii] Something that is above and beyond or outside ourselves and this universe as we know it.

[ix] Those things found within the universe as we know it.

[x] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/44015-when-men-choose-not-to-believe-in-god-they-do

Note from our Executive Director: Many thanks to Kevin Haug, ELCA pastor in Texas, for his article about the Sparkle creed.  This so-called “creed” has received a lot of attention and stimulated a lot of discussion since its recent use during a worship service in an ELCA congregation in Minnesota.  We should all be alarmed over the way in which this statement rejects Biblical teaching and orthodox theology in its promoting the LGBTQ agenda and transgender ideology.  We are saddened but not surprised as we read of many ELCA pastors who are praising it as a way to connect the Christian faith with life today.  We are also saddened but not surprised by the total silence of ELCA leaders about it. 

“Pastor, what are we going to do about this?”

Those words were spoken by one of my octogenarians after she heard two news stories about the “Sparkle creed,” a statement that received national attention because of its use at an ELCA Lutheran Church in Minnesota.  The congregation recited it at worship, posted the video online, and it went viral.

The “Sparkle creed” has actually been around for a year or two, but it was not until conservative news sites and blogs discovered it that it caused a bit of an uproar, and that uproar is not without merit.  However, care needs to be taken when addressing this issue. I will attempt to show why.

First, let me define creed as a statement of belief.

In a very real way, everyone has a creed of some sort.  Individuals have creeds. Organizations have creeds. Individual congregations have creeds.  In fact, many biblical scholars say that the first creed was quite simple: Jesus is Lord. Those three words actually led to the death of Christians who would not say the Roman creed: Caesar is Lord.  

Because everyone has a creed, one could argue that having a creed is actually a neutral concept.  People believe all sorts of things. That they believe them is undisputed and neutral, but what they believe can be problematic and either good or bad. For instance, if I believe that all human beings are endowed by their Creator with fundamental rights, then that is a creedal statement.  And I would happily argue that it is a good creedal statement for various reasons.  Someone could hold a different position: that human beings are not endowed with rights from a Creator, but that governments decide what rights a person should or should not have. I would argue that this isn’t a very good position to take, but that doesn’t prevent some nations and people from holding it.  

To change positions literally requires a conversion process as many, if not most, creedal beliefs are actually statements of faith not statements of science.  For instance, science is practiced by using the scientific method: state a hypothesis; test and measure to see if the hypothesis holds water; formulate a theory; test the theory repeatedly.  Is the scientific method a true way of getting knowledge? Well, you have to assume that it is.  You have to trust that it is.  You cannot test the scientific method by using the scientific method.  Philosophers call this circular reasoning. Trusting that the scientific method is an accurate way of obtaining knowledge is a creedal belief. It is a deep, foundational belief, but it is a belief none-the-less, and one does not change those sorts of beliefs easily.

Which brings us to the Creeds of the Church, and I am intentionally capitalizing the letter C on both of those words. There is a reason for this as I shall get into shortly.

Within the Christian Church, there are three, recognized, orthodox Creeds: the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, and what you need to realize about these statements of faith is this: these Creeds were recognized by the whole Church as true affirmations of the Christian faith.  They were based in Scripture. They were developed over time or argued over or carefully thought through. They were not put together in a pastor’s office to make a particular group or segment of society feel welcomed or accepted.

In general, they were written to stomp out heresy. They were written to unify a divided Church. They were written to solidify and codify what the Church believed about God the Father, Christ the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  And as such, they are not to be trifled with.

Imagine for a minute if you will, gathering with a group of Christians circa 250 A.D. You are in hiding because Christianity is still not a recognized religion of the Roman Empire. It is the Easter Vigil, the time that it has become traditional for converts to be baptized into the faith. As the baptismal liturgy begins, the presider looks into the eyes of the converts. He begins addressing them and asks them three questions: Do you believe in God the Father? Do you believe in God the Son? Do you believe in God the Holy Spirit? And the converts begin reciting what they have been taught about who God is; who Jesus is; and who the Holy Spirit is. These statements have come together over decades of persecution and trial. Speaking them would immediately set these converts apart from the dominant culture and could lead to arrest and persecution.  Such is the nature of the Apostles’ Creed.

Or consider a church divided by various sects all claiming to represent the one true faith. Yet, those beliefs are contradictory at times. Some are not grounded in scripture. Some are off the charts. What does it mean to be a Christian? What are the foundational beliefs? Is this world truly, totally evil? Does only the spiritual count? Was Jesus indeed fully human and fully divine or a really good human being only adopted by God and infused with the divine Spirit?  What do you Christians truly believe? And bishops from far and wide gather to hammer such things out.  They consult deeply with the scriptures; argue their points vehemently and passionately; and put together a statement of faith which declares: this is it.  These are the non-negotiables. It is accepted by the church council and has stood the test of time for centuries. Such is the nature of the Nicene Creed.

The “Sparkle creed” shares none of this history. It was written for entirely different reasons and has not even come close to being vetted by the whole Christian Church on earth.  In fact, the majority of the Christian Church on earth would outright reject it. 

Therefore, it follows, that it has no standing to replace the Creeds in worship.

I mean: if someone wants to say that they adhere to the “Sparkle creed,” then they can personally say that they believe exactly what is in that statement. If a congregation wants to go so far as to use this creed in worship, then they are free to do so, but I strongly believe it should be introduced as a statement of that individual congregation, not of the Christian Church–it is not “the faith of the Church, the faith in which we baptize.” 

For to use it in such a manner is to actually separate one’s self and congregation from the global Church.  It is to become myopic and rather self-centered. Arguably, it is creating one’s own personal faith and religion—dare I say one’s own god.

And yes, I am quite aware that I belong to a denomination whose founder separated himself and then many congregations from the larger Church body of the time. The irony is not lost on me; however, Luther didn’t mess with the Creeds.  He affirmed them and what they stood for repeatedly. He didn’t tinker with the Creeds or try to change them for he never wanted to split with the Church of Rome.  These statements of belief were not up for negotiation or reformation. They were good “as is.”

They still are. They are meant to hold us together despite our disagreements on secondary issues. Trying to put “sparkle” in them only causes more division.

Leave the Creeds alone.